General discussion

Sure there are left wing loonies, but check this one from the right

EDIT: technically this is from a conservative who tossed out his lefty partner, but it is supported/used to justify GW as a myth by many righties. ______________________________________________

Easily usable energy is the currency of human progress. Without it, stagnation, regression and untold human deaths will result.

The lamentations of the popular press notwithstanding, there is no shortage of energy. Scientists define everything that man can perceive in the natural world as forms of "energy," including all physical objects. These forms of energy differ, however, in how easily mankind can make use of them by means of current technology.

Time to start funding ways to turn staplers into automobile fuel?

"The United States was once the world leader in the production of useful energy. Had that American leadership continued, our country and our world would be very different. Technological miracles that are only dreams today would have already taken place. Moreover, very large portions of the world?s poor and underdeveloped people would have been able to lift themselves from poverty, provided they had a laboratory of liberty in which to do so, and to escape the horrible conditions in which they lead lives of desperation, constantly at the edge of death."

"During the past several decades, mankind should have been making a transition from hydrocarbon power to breeder-reactor-fueled nuclear power. Hydrocarbon power would still be extensively utilized in many applications, but nuclear power would be developing into our primary energy source. Hydroelectric power would continue but would reach a maximum as suitable hydroelectric sites were completely utilized. This transition, however, has been blocked.

Progress stalled because of another force at work in our body politic. This force is led by influential people who understand very well the benefits of abundant usable energy and seek to keep mankind from realizing those benefits ? not because they want to save the planet, but because they seek global control."

Getting ripe now!

"The enemies of humanity are, however, not content. They want to move technology another step downward and energy production another step backward by diminishing even the use of hydrocarbon energy. To accomplish this, they have contrived three lies. These are the lies of hydrocarbon shortages, human-caused global cooling, and human-caused global warming. Their allies in the press, government, foundations and business have heavily promoted these lies over the past several decades.

The first argument was that the supply of hydrocarbons would soon be exhausted. The vast deposits of coal, natural gas, and oil and oil-bearing minerals on the Earth soon overcame this lie. Did they? What The vast deposits of coal, natural gas, and oil and oil-bearing minerals on the Earth? That's a complete crock in itself.

This same cast of characters, in fact, will be found promoting virtually any scheme that would reduce technological progress, thereby increasing human misery and death. It's a big conspiracy to create a retarded nation....no comment on that. :)

Americans today permit the slaughter of millions of children each year by abortion. We are also complicit in the deaths of two to three million children each year in underdeveloped countries by denying them the protection from malaria that DDT provides. Will we now allow an even greater act of technological genocide?

Will we participate in a thinly disguised program of world "population reduction" through United Nations constriction of the use of coal, oil and natural gas? Are we to allow the deaths of tens of millions of people from yet another American-supported genocidal action? How much longer do we think God will stay His hand from administering the justice Jefferson feared ? unless we do something to stop this pseudo-environmentalist madness? Okaaaay, deep end now. Tens of millions of people will die due to the horrible Global Warming conspiracy and the prevention of America's need to expand it's use of hydrocarbon based fuels." LOL. what a maroooooon!

__________________________________________________

So who is this nutjob with such radical and completely absurd theories?

Who is this that feels that nuclear power is the only viable future for our world?

He is a man who was orignially accredited with creating a scientists petition on global warming. "The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers...

In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)"

"When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. "

It's a sham, a hoax, a big fiddle, the great global warming swindle, but it most CERTAINLY is NOT anything scientific, proven or even half valid in its contents. It's nothing but a big scam, it was started by a complete radical nutjob, supported by many other non-scientists with similar agendas AND his son, it even included names such as Miss Piggy, Col. Clink, Henry Ford etc. as it has grown to over 19000 signatures since iviting 'online scientists' to sign it.

And yet THIS is the petition referred to more than a few times when it comes to global warming, peopl ehave actually based thier theories and opinions by supporting it with this tripe!?

All Comments

I want to address part of your post.

"The United States was once the world leader in the production of useful energy. Had that American leadership continued, our country and our world would be very different. Technological miracles that are only dreams today would have already taken place. Moreover, very large portions of the world?s poor and underdeveloped people would have been able to lift themselves from poverty, provided they had a laboratory of liberty in which to do so, and to escape the horrible conditions in which they lead lives of desperation, constantly at the edge of death."

"During the past several decades, mankind should have been making a transition from hydrocarbon power to breeder-reactor-fueled nuclear power. Hydrocarbon power would still be extensively utilized in many applications, but nuclear power would be developing into our primary energy source. Hydroelectric power would continue but would reach a maximum as suitable hydroelectric sites were completely utilized. This transition, however, has been blocked.

Progress stalled because of another force at work in our body politic. This force is led by influential people who understand very well the benefits of abundant usable energy and seek to keep mankind from realizing those benefits ? not because they want to save the planet, but because they seek global control."

Getting ripe now

One, The AL Gore, Hilary Clinton and their ilk, of the Democratic party have limited our supply of Domestic oil. They have limited our ability to process fuel. They are playing politics with our fuel, and our efforts against terrorism. Their efforts to derail our Military, and our energy programs, are based in their desire to gain, or regain power but fermenting unrest and dissatisfaction...

Two: Al Gore and Hollary Clinton are trying to become the next President of the United States. I am not sure that Al wants to run the world, but Hillary...

Comments

Note, those are NOT my comments but comments by the whack job that CLAIMS to have a petition of 15000 scientists names (mostly a big hoax) that all state GW is not increased by man's emisisons. The guy is a Conservative on glue.

My point is that while some have referred to the petition as support in their disbelief of man's increased effects on global warming, it's actually not a valid document and was 'compiled' by a once clever man gone freaky.

"John Stossel, ABC's "20/20" anchorman, has a recently released book about the various untruths we accept, many from the media and academic elite. The book is appropriately titled "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity."

"Being a longtime media insider, Stossel is well positioned to talk about the media's gross lack of understanding that often becomes part of the conventional wisdom. Stossel gives many examples; let's look at a few.

[5 paragraphs skipped to save space; see full article]

"Hardly a day goes by without some kind of warning that mankind's use of fossil fuels, especially in the U.S., is causing global warming. Stossel looks at the numbers. Half of this century's global warming happened between 1900 and 1945. Stossel asks, "If man is responsible, why wasn't there much more warming in the second half of the century? We burned much more fuel during that time."

"By the way, if there's global warming, it might be a godsend. According to Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, added carbon dioxide helps plants grow. Warmer winters give farmers a longer growing season, and the warming might end the droughts in the Sahara desert.

"There's another consideration. For the past 800,000 years, there have been periods of approximately 100,000 years called Ice Ages, followed by a period of 10,000 years, a period called Interglacial, followed by another Ice Age. We're about 10,500 years into the present Interglacial period, namely, we're 500 years overdue for another Ice Age. If indeed mankind's activity contributes to the planet's warming, we might postpone the coming Ice Age.

"John Stossel's "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity" exposes the false basis for the public fright often caused by an uninformed media and academic elite. Exposure is precisely what's needed because politicians use public fright as a means to gain greater control over our lives."

Too many people want to coerce with fear, rather than act with facts. The truth IS out there...just that no one wants to hear it!

Stossel

Is a journalist with fixed agenda, always has been and has proudly sat alongside with other norable 'storytellers'. No different that Geraldo or even Oprah, and a wee bit better than Barbara Walters. He is paid to sell stories.

What isnt mentioned in George Mason's personal opinion column that you posted, is that these stories are ALSO edited/removed due to credibility issues. Heresay, planted seeds by incredible sources etc. Much like GWB even gets fed misinformation, in his case enough to start a friggin war over it.

So before running to get yuor gun, think about th esource. In this case a personal web page based on personal 'minority opinion'. Just because you can find something on the web to support your conclusions, as have others who have posted the Petition in question have, it does not mean it is correct, true or even written by a sane human being.

Now, whil ethat also applies to my initial comments, the source is known to be very reliable and very open minded and acting without agenda. Which is not the case with hacks like Stossel.

I don't disagree

I think every opinion columnist has their own agenda. I happen to like Walter Williams, because I think he is humorous in how he puts things. But I also understand he is a libertarian, and his views are definitely colored by that worldview. This is also the case with feminists, ecologists, socialists, (name one).

I agree with you on the global warming thing. The viewpoints in the paper are based on junk science. Unfortunately, real science is kind of boring, so its not reported. Real science also doesn't have to be elected, so its conveniently ignored. Funny how that works

......colored by that worldview

Everyone's "opinion" is colored by their "worldview" -- bar none. Oz's opinion is colored by his worldview, as is mine. It goes to premise. Oz, for example, is more of a collectivist-thinker, while I am more of an individualist-thinker. But just because that may be true, it doesn't automatically discredit a source whose opinion is based on that worldview.

In my opinion, people who proudly admit their bias (their "worldview") actually have MORE credibility than those who try to hide it. I can name dozens of opinion journalists who openly admit their conservative or libertarian views, Williams and Stossel being two of them, as are George Will, Cal Thomas, Michelle Maulkin, William F. Buckley, and many others. But people like David Broder, Maureen O'Dowd, Helen Thomas, Walter Cronkite, et al try to hide behind some "impartiality" shield. What a crock! Who's more credible? Someone who admits their bias or someone who tries to hide it? I say the former.

Typical OZ B.S.

whenever you can't post a credible retort to a message, you automatically question the source. Cut the crap! Both Walter Williams and John Stossel are very credible -- except, of course, to people who don't want to believe them because of their opposing agenda.

Credible retort to a message?

You've GOT ot be kidding. I have posted fact after fact to support my comclusions on global warming. Which are NOT that it is ased by man, in case you need to be reducated again as to what I've really said.

YOUR only supporting 'facts' that you have posted are based on a BS document from a nutbag. I didn't even MENTION your name when posting this nor the thread to which it was referred to. So obviously it is not questioning the source to discount the mesenger, what messenger? You only JUST piped up.

the reason this is important to discount is that you and others have posted this finding as fact aginst global warming, stating how 15000 scientists think.....

15000 scientists do NOT think.....and it DOESN'T provide a factual or even semi realistic document to support your claims. YOU posted it not me. And if YOUR comments are based on this document, then in order to prove otherwise, this document's flaws must be aired.

I know what you are ATTEMPTING to get at by saying I discount the source, the problem is though, its the SOURCE that has to be credible in order to support YOUR conclusions, and it simply isn't, as proven many times here and in the other thread.

This was a completely valid reduction of credibility of a source provided to support your (and others) theories.

Stossel

I simply explained that he was a journalist like most others with a agenda. Regardles sof if he admite to his agneda or not, it does nto remove tha fatc that he has a personal agenda. So even if you deem him more honorable, and I actually don't mind Stossel's opinions, they are just that, opinions...not facts as they were propsed to be. the article referred to was an individual opinion that was written as a small minority newsletter letter, as shown rigth in the header.

EDIT: Max, please show me where I said anythign about his opinion not counting. I simply said it was as biased as any other journalists opinion, please prove otherwise.

Max's mind is made up

Just like all the rest of us, he doesn't want to be confused by facts that contradict his conclusions. The main difference is that Max seems to take pride in offending as many people as possible in the shortest possible amount of time.

What I find most interesting about all this "liberal vs. conservative" crap is that nobody can seem to answer this question: If the media are so liberal, why are William F. Buckley, George Will, Rush Limbaugh, John Stossel, and many other conservative columnists so well-known and influential? Seems to me that if the media are as liberal as they are painted, the first thing they would do is shut these guys down so the "proper" point of view isn't contradicted...

Start or search

Create a new discussion

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

Post type

Subject title

Topic Tags

Select up to 3 tags (1 tag required)

Cloud

Piracy

Security

Apple

Microsoft

IT Employment

Google

Open Source

Mobility

Social Enterprise

Community

Smartphones

Operating Systems

Windows

Mac

Malware

Tablets

Networking

Browser

Hardware

Software

Web Developerment

Linux

Off Topic

Message Body

Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

Please note: Do not post advertisements, offensive material, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you're new to the TechRepublic Forums, please read our TechRepublic Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms Of Use.